|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/26/04 - 13:29 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | I say keep the current structure, following a more traditional pension plan scheme, and make every earned dollar SS tax eligible. |
Translation - Increase our taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 13:40 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
Translation - Increase our taxes. |
only if you make over the income cap...
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 16:23 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
A 401K is different than a traditional funded pension plan. With a 401K (defined contribution plan) you control the divestiture, you can cash out at any time, and the money is available on a lump sum basis at retirement. With a pension plan (defined benefit pension) your employer controls the divestiture, you can borrow against it but not fully cash it out, and the payments come in the form of structured annuities at retirement.
GETTING BACK ON TRACK if SS were to be privatized it would follow a 401K funding scheme. Anyone who had a 401K, or a 403B, in recent years knows the dangers and volatility of the markets that support them. How many people of near retirement age did you pity in 2001? I say keep the current structure, following a more traditional pension plan scheme, and make every earned dollar SS tax eligible. |
because it works so well and will last so long
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 16:27 Post subject:
| runaroundsue wrote: | | because it works so well and will last so long |
Add in more money, it will last LONGER. Basic economics.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 16:37 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
Add in more money, it will last LONGER. Basic economics. |
no sheet. But with an aging population the number of people adding in shrinks. Where are you gonna get more money?
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 16:42 Post subject:
| runaroundsue wrote: | | no sheet. But with an aging population the number of people adding in shrinks. Where are you gonna get more money? |
With the amount of people in this country who make more than the cap of $87,900 and get that excess SS tax free, seems like there's a lot of money that could be collected that isn't. Let Oprah fund SS with all her dollars instead of an hour's work.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 17:36 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: |
With the amount of people in this country who make more than the cap of $87,900 and get that excess SS tax free, seems like there's a lot of money that could be collected that isn't. Let Oprah fund SS with all her dollars instead of an hour's work. |
yep. should have been done a long time ago. Now it would seem that if invoked it would again, only affect the working wealthy as it's on earned income. I'd rather Oprah just not be able to collect out. But we'll always differ there as I really think ss should not be a right on age, but on need. So the whole premise of ss is wrong in my eyes and always has been. The first people that collected benefits, did not pay in at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 17:43 Post subject:
I'd be willing to compromise on letting people partially invest their contribution, say ½ to ¼ of the EE deduction. I know I could probably get a better return investing in blue chip paying stocks and bonds than letting the money that is being collected earn 0%. Heck you make out if you put into a savings account at today's lousy interest rates. I would stipulate that you could move money around through various accounts, (stocks, bonds, etc) but you would be unable to make any withdrawl until one reaches retirement age.
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 18:20 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
So the federal govt. is responsible to provide income (cradle to grave) because Americans are stupid & can't keep their hands off that moolah? Does anyone take any responsibility for their own actions anymore? |
The federal government is responsible to provide citizens what it has been taking money out of our accounts for. The change the retirement laws on those of us fast approaching the retirement is blatantly unfair. I have enough money to retire on but a lot of people in generation have had to spend their money raising children and simply don't have anything left over. Forcing people to work until they are 72 knowing that the death rate goes up exponentially after 65 is mean spirited, but then again, typically Republican.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/26/04 - 21:51 Post subject:
| GaRebelRunner wrote: | | The federal government is responsible to provide citizens what it has been taking money out of our accounts for. |
That is somewhat different that what certain folks are arguing for in this particular thread (i.e. pay out SS benefits to those who did not pay into the system). Pay out benefits to those that did not pay into the system is part of the problem with the funding of SS at this very moment.
| Quote: | | I have enough money to retire on but a lot of people in generation have had to spend their money raising children and simply don't have anything left over. |
People shouldn't bring children into this world unless they are prepared to finacially support them. I know, I know - Another ugly viewpoint from someone that actually wants people to take accountability for their own lives & actions.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 07:49 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
People shouldn't bring children into this world unless they are prepared to finacially support them. I know, I know - Another ugly viewpoint from someone that actually wants people to take accountability for their own lives & actions. |
Gasp! Sonny, that responsibility thing is SO 1950's  Who are you, Ward Cleaver?
You're right though, but in keeping with the line of thinking that accidents happen, I have several friends who can attest to that, then adjust your lifestyle accordingly so that you do have the money to support an extra unplanned child. Don't try to live the same way you did with two kids if you now have three.
And yes, I know where the hidden undertone is there, but there are some that stubbornly insist there is no welfare problem in this country so we'll just let them think that. 
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 08:43 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | That is somewhat different that what certain folks are arguing for in this particular thread (i.e. pay out SS benefits to those who did not pay into the system). Pay out benefits to those that did not pay into the system is part of the problem with the funding of SS at this very moment. |
Every SAHM/SAHD would disagree, as would every disabled person unable to work.
| sonnylax wrote: | | People shouldn't bring children into this world unless they are prepared to finacially support them. I know, I know - Another ugly viewpoint from someone that actually wants people to take accountability for their own lives & actions. |
This, I agree with. Sometimes people should stop at one or two, sometimes people shouldn't have them at all.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 08:56 Post subject:
| elkid wrote: | | Every SAHM/SAHD would disagree, as would every disabled person unable to work. |
I wouldn't assume that they all disagree with me kid. Maybe some of those folks are actually intelligent enough to realize there is no free lunch and that aren't entitlted to receive benefits from a system they didn't pay into.
Plutarch noted that "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." Wise words indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 09:03 Post subject:
I'm a SAHM and I agree with Sonny.
|
|
|
|
|
GaRebelRunner
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 1097
Location: Tucker, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/28/04 - 08:57 Post subject:
I'm willing to consider changing the SS system provided the neocons can demonstrate how it will not harm those who have already paid into the system.
Thus far, the schemes are nothing more to break the backs of those who can least afford it.
|
|
|
|
